"It is our responsibility to give it out," Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman said in a recent interview. "If someone asks for the information, they can have it." But some attorneys are troubled by the lack of confidentiality in the new mandatory reporting system.

This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

What's being said

Pro bono legal counsel may assist an individual or group on a legal case by filing government applications or petitions. A judge may occasionally determine that the loser should compensate a winning pro bono counsel.

This emphasis on the "pro-bono mandate" on the legal profession is increasingly troublesome. No one expects or demands that doctors donate their services to those who cannot access health care. Mandating disclosure of pro-bono services and or donations made to pro-bono efforts is wrong. Or if there is such insistance on mandating more pro-bono efforts by lawyers, how about loan forgiveness for students trying to pay off their loans?